{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"invariant_mode_decomposition_design__geoengineering_planetary_science","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"34b167bcb3e794d9150a4dc589f912ca36d3b8f08abbee28f9792d67eee88cd1","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The planetary-risk problem is independently specified through aggregate-metric blindness, coupled regional responses, affected objectives, a baseline, and observable falsifiers rather than merely restating the archetype."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposal preserves the archetype's transformation, state, invariant modes, gains, selection, stability, intervention mapping, residual, drift, coupling, scope, and gap structure with explicit planetary realizations."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The proposed lever plausibly changes analytical decisions by exposing consequence-sensitive coupled directions and rejecting invalid reductions before simulated choices proceed; comparison against both baseline assessment and robust original-coordinate analysis isolates its incremental leverage."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"All named components are translated, load-bearing mechanisms have counterfactual-removal logic, incompatible mechanisms are rejected for domain-specific reasons, and non-normality, residuals, drift, and local validity are integrated rather than omitted."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Effectiveness and modal persistence are consistently bounded as hypotheses, no empirical or novelty result is asserted, model-conditional interpretation is explicit, and the proposal specifies withheld-scenario tests for unresolved claims."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier tests whether coupled modal structure adds predictive information, while the intervention falsifier separately tests whether modal gating improves warning or constraint detection over named rivals without increasing false reassurance."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The authorized activity is limited to a preregistered model-only pilot, physical perturbation is excluded, analysts lack deployment authority, affected parties are identified, and explicit halt and rollback conditions restore full-model assessment."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The full invariant-mode design is preserved with traceable domain mappings, bounded approximation, residual visibility, drift governance, and decision consequences."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal directly addresses coupled planetary models, regional and ecological harms, model disagreement, nonlinear limits, international governance, and the exceptional stakes of geoengineering."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"Modal diagnostics can plausibly alter modeled risk classification and monitoring priorities, but their incremental predictive value over robust ensemble methods remains an empirical hypothesis."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component has a specific planetary-science realization, and adapted elements retain their original functional role."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate confronts nonlinear thresholds, non-normal transient growth, unstable eigenspaces, rare omitted behavior, false reassurance, authority concentration, and a strong nearest rival."},"reframing_gain":{"score":3,"reason":"It productively shifts attention from aggregate or coordinate-level indicators to coupled response directions, though robust multivariate ensemble analysis may capture some of the same risks without modal language."},"practicality_testability":{"score":3,"reason":"A model-only comparative pilot with held-out scenarios, measurable outcomes, halt rules, and rollback is feasible, while cross-model state harmonization and threshold calibration remain substantial operational work."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The bounded analytical pilot offers meaningful warning and model-audit value with low direct physical risk, although legitimization, false confidence, and governance misuse remain material downstream hazards."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The composition may be useful, but prior art is explicitly unsearched and no evidence establishes novelty relative to existing climate-model modal analysis or reduced-order risk assessment."}},"weighted_total":86.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"HIGH","issue":"The proposal lacks evidence about prior implementations and therefore cannot support a novelty claim.","repair":"Conduct a documented prior-art review spanning climate-model eigenanalysis, non-normal growth diagnostics, reduced-order modeling, emergent constraints, and geoengineering risk gates before claiming distinctiveness.","evidence_boundary":"Until that review is completed, describe novelty as unknown and assess the work on structural and experimental merit only."},{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Thresholds and cross-model comparability are conceptually specified but not operationally fixed.","repair":"Before the pilot, preregister consequence-weighted residual tolerances, uncertainty-adjusted gap and drift rules, conditioning limits, false-reassurance criteria, and a protocol for aligning state representations across models.","evidence_boundary":"Threshold values should be treated as prospective test parameters, not established safety boundaries."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt, with unchanged problem and causal-lever identifiers and no prior repairs to assess."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"The candidate is structurally complete, domain-grounded, causally testable, adversarially bounded, and restricted to a reversible model-only pilot. Its principal unresolved weakness is lack of novelty evidence, which does not defeat the otherwise successful evaluation."}